On 07/02/2016 04:47 PM, Xavier Bachelot wrote: > Any comments are welcome, I'll enhance the wiki page with them. > I'm especially interested in comments_against_ hosting libdvdcss in RPM > Fusion, with facts on why it would be bad. > Once we'll have enough input, we can then collectively try to reach a > decision on what to do with libdvdcss. Can you reach out to VideoLAN on their reasoning? Kodi has decided to force bundling of libdvd{css,nav,read} and my attempts at removing libdvdcss support result in a non-functional Kodi in regards to reading DVDs. Even non-encrypted DVDs.

On 07/08/2016 12:59 PM, Xavier Bachelot wrote: > The reasoning is VideoLAN is a French organization and libdvdcss is > legal in France. > Seehttp://www.videolan.org/legal.html > > Starting from that point, the first question to answer to be able to > distribute libdvdcss in RPM Fusion is which laws do apply to RPM Fusion. > As all (?) of the servers are hosted in France, I believe the French law > applies and thus it should be safe. But indeed, that is just what I > understand from RPM Fusion infrastructure and I might be wrong. > > Second question is, do the people that run the RPM Fusion infra and thus > might be considered liable for the distributed content accept the > potential legal risk, which is pretty low if French laws apply, but is > still non-null. Also, just like I'm unsure where the servers are > located, I'm unsure of the Infra head count and names. > > I'll reach out to VideoLAN as soon as we have answers to the above > questions. > Also, once the above are answered, we can then talk about how the RPM > Fusion contributors feel about libdvdcss, but my (biased) feeling is > most of current contributors are ok . However, there have been some > people that were advert to having libdvdcss in RPM Fusion in the past. I > don't know who they are, what were their exact reasoning, if they are > still active or not and if they've changed their mind. That's why I was > calling especially for opinions against distributing libdvdcss. Nicolas, can you share your thoughts on this?

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Xavier Bachelot <xavier(a)bachelot.org&gt; wrote: > > On 23/07/2016 08:27, Michael Cronenworth wrote: >> >> On 07/08/2016 12:59 PM, Xavier Bachelot wrote: >>> >>> The reasoning is VideoLAN is a French organization and libdvdcss is >>> legal in France. >>> Seehttp://www.videolan.org/legal.html >>> >>> Starting from that point, the first question to answer to be able to >>> distribute libdvdcss in RPM Fusion is which laws do apply to RPM Fusion. >>> As all (?) of the servers are hosted in France, I believe the French law >>> applies and thus it should be safe. But indeed, that is just what I >>> understand from RPM Fusion infrastructure and I might be wrong. >>> >>> Second question is, do the people that run the RPM Fusion infra and thus >>> might be considered liable for the distributed content accept the >>> potential legal risk, which is pretty low if French laws apply, but is >>> still non-null. Also, just like I'm unsure where the servers are >>> located, I'm unsure of the Infra head count and names. >>> >>> I'll reach out to VideoLAN as soon as we have answers to the above >>> questions. >>> Also, once the above are answered, we can then talk about how the RPM >>> Fusion contributors feel about libdvdcss, but my (biased) feeling is >>> most of current contributors are ok . However, there have been some >>> people that were advert to having libdvdcss in RPM Fusion in the past. I >>> don't know who they are, what were their exact reasoning, if they are >>> still active or not and if they've changed their mind. That's why I was >>> calling especially for opinions against distributing libdvdcss. >> >> >> Nicolas, can you share your thoughts on this? > > > Now that the summer vacations are coming to an end, hopefully more people > are around and can raise their voice. > Infra people, packages maintainers, mirror admins, end-users, don't be > shy, let us know what you think about including libdvdcss in RPM Fusion. > > Regards, > Xavier As a package maintainer and end-user, I think it'd be valuable to have libdvdcss in RPM Fusion. If there is some concern about mirroring, though, perhaps we could create a *third* repository for this sort of even more dubious package? Which I guess at the moment would just be libdvdcss and anything that depends on it. Then mirrors that don't / can't ship it simply don't mirror this additional repo.

On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 9:10 PM, Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com <mailto:kwizart@gmail.com>> wrote: > As a package maintainer and end-user, I think it'd be valuable to have > libdvdcss in RPM Fusion. > > If there is some concern about mirroring, though, perhaps we could create a > *third* repository for this sort of even more dubious package? Which I guess > at the moment would just be libdvdcss and anything that depends on it. Then > mirrors that don't / can't ship it simply don't mirror this additional repo. That reminds me how openh264 is dealt with in fedora. Can anyone sum-up the existing methods used by various distro about this issue ? I did a little research. libdvdcss is Mageia Tainted repository, an official Mageia repository that hosts packages that they may infringe on patents and copyright laws in some countries. E.g. most multimedia codecs are shipped in this repository. It is included in Arch Linux, in the extra repository (i.e. non core packages). libdvdcss is not included in Debian, Ubuntu and SUSE. Debian users must use Debian Multimedia repository - which is not part of the Debian project but it is maintained by Debian developers or maintainers and therefore it seems similar to RPM Fusion. https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-multimedia/libdvdcss.git/tree/debian <https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-multimedia/libdvdcss.git/tree/debian> Debian multimedia also provides libdvd-pkg. `dpkg-reconfigure libdvd-pkg` may be used to build and install libdvdcss* package(s). https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-multimedia/libdvdcss-pkg.git/tree/debian <https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-multimedia/libdvdcss-pkg.git/tree/debi... This package is also provided in Ubuntu 15.10+ and it must how their users must install libdvdcss: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RestrictedFormats/PlayingDVDs <https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RestrictedFormats/PlayingDVDs> Debian/Ubuntu uses can also use a VideoLAN repository to install libdvdcss: http://www.videolan.org/developers/libdvdcss.html <http://www.videolan.org/developers/libdvdcss.html> VideoLAN also hosts a repository for SuSE users which includes libdvdcss. Libdvdcss is already packaged for Fedora in Remi's RPM repository and in United RPMS. http://rpms.famillecollet.com/fedora/24/remi/i386/repoview/libdvdcss.html <http://rpms.famillecollet.com/fedora/24/remi/i386/repoview/libdvdcss.html... http://unitedrpms.sourceforge.net/x86_64/repoview/libdvdcss.html <http://unitedrpms.sourceforge.net/x86_64/repoview/libdvdcss.html> Summarizing, these are the methods we can implement: 1. ship libdvdcss in the free repository 2. ship libdvdcss in a newly created repository 3. ship a package that can build and install libdvdcss in the free repository 4. don't ship libdvdcss and refer to another (non RPM Fusion maintained) repository Maybe we should ask various RPM Fusion mirror maintainers what they think about and what is their preferred method to ship libdvdcss. Bye, Andrea

On 05/09/2016 15:56, Andrea Musuruane wrote: > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 9:10 PM, Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com > <mailto:kwizart@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > As a package maintainer and end-user, I think it'd be valuable to have > > libdvdcss in RPM Fusion. > > > > If there is some concern about mirroring, though, perhaps we could > create a > > *third* repository for this sort of even more dubious package? > Which I guess > > at the moment would just be libdvdcss and anything that depends on > it. Then > > mirrors that don't / can't ship it simply don't mirror this > additional repo. > > That reminds me how openh264 is dealt with in fedora. > Can anyone sum-up the existing methods used by various distro about > this issue ? > > > I did a little research. > Thanks for the research, this is much appreciated.

I'd like to add : 3.5 : use RPM Fusion for SCM and build, but ship the binaries from elsewhere (ala openh264 in Fedora, built in Fedora infra, but shipped from Cisco)

> Nicolas, can you share your thoughts on this?

2016-09-06 9:48 GMT+02:00 Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de&gt;: > On 09/01/2016 06:56 PM, Xavier Bachelot wrote: > >>> Nicolas, can you share your thoughts on this? > > libdvdcss's legal situation in Germany is widely unclear[1]. > > According to German laws cracking "wirksame technische Maßnahmen“ > ("effective technical measures") of copy protection is unlawful. > > The fundamental question in this context is: "Does CSS (still) qualify as an > effective technical measures of copy protection?" > > Answer: Nobody knows. Only courts would be able to answer this question. > > I.e. the legal risks of libdvdcss have not changed for years, i.e. should > libdvdcss binaries enter RPMFusion, esp. German RPMFusion mirror > owners/mirror managers are not unlikely to be confronted with legal action. How many legal action have occurred ?

2016-09-06 9:48 GMT+02:00 Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de&gt;: > On 09/01/2016 06:56 PM, Xavier Bachelot wrote: > >>> Nicolas, can you share your thoughts on this? > > libdvdcss's legal situation in Germany is widely unclear[1]. > > According to German laws cracking "wirksame technische Maßnahmen“ > ("effective technical measures") of copy protection is unlawful. > > The fundamental question in this context is: "Does CSS (still) qualify as an > effective technical measures of copy protection?" > > Answer: Nobody knows. Only courts would be able to answer this question. > > I.e. the legal risks of libdvdcss have not changed for years, i.e. should > libdvdcss binaries enter RPMFusion, esp. German RPMFusion mirror > owners/mirror managers are not unlikely to be confronted with legal action. How many legal action have occurred ?